Kevin T Chen1,2, Stephanie Salcedo1, Daniel B Chonde1,3, David Izquierdo-Garcia1, Michael A Levine1,3, Julie C Price1, Bradford C Dickerson1,4, Ciprian Catana1. 1. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Program in Biophysics, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subject motion in positron emission tomography (PET) studies leads to image blurring and artifacts; simultaneously acquired magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data provides a means for motion correction (MC) in integrated PET/MRI scanners. PURPOSE: To assess the effect of realistic head motion and MR-based MC on static [18 F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET images in dementia patients. STUDY TYPE: Observational study. POPULATION: Thirty dementia subjects were recruited. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T hybrid PET/MR scanner where EPI-based and T1 -weighted sequences were acquired simultaneously with the PET data. ASSESSMENT: Head motion parameters estimated from high temporal resolution MR volumes were used for PET MC. The MR-based MC method was compared to PET frame-based MC methods in which motion parameters were estimated by coregistering 5-minute frames before and after accounting for the attenuation-emission mismatch. The relative changes in standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) between the PET volumes processed with the various MC methods, without MC, and the PET volumes with simulated motion were compared in relevant brain regions. STATISTICAL TESTS: The absolute value of the regional SUVR relative change was assessed with pairwise paired t-tests testing at the P = 0.05 level, comparing the values obtained through different MR-based MC processing methods as well as across different motion groups. The intraregion voxelwise variability of regional SUVRs obtained through different MR-based MC processing methods was also assessed with pairwise paired t-tests testing at the P = 0.05 level. RESULTS: MC had a greater impact on PET data quantification in subjects with larger amplitude motion (higher than 18% in the medial orbitofrontal cortex) and greater changes were generally observed for the MR-based MC method compared to the frame-based methods. Furthermore, a mean relative change of ∼4% was observed after MC even at the group level, suggesting the importance of routinely applying this correction. The intraregion voxelwise variability of regional SUVRs was also decreased using MR-based MC. All comparisons were significant at the P = 0.05 level. DATA CONCLUSION: Incorporating temporally correlated MR data to account for intraframe motion has a positive impact on the FDG PET image quality and data quantification in dementia patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1288-1296.
BACKGROUND: Subject motion in positron emission tomography (PET) studies leads to image blurring and artifacts; simultaneously acquired magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data provides a means for motion correction (MC) in integrated PET/MRI scanners. PURPOSE: To assess the effect of realistic head motion and MR-based MC on static [18 F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET images in dementiapatients. STUDY TYPE: Observational study. POPULATION: Thirty dementia subjects were recruited. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T hybrid PET/MR scanner where EPI-based and T1 -weighted sequences were acquired simultaneously with the PET data. ASSESSMENT: Head motion parameters estimated from high temporal resolution MR volumes were used for PET MC. The MR-based MC method was compared to PET frame-based MC methods in which motion parameters were estimated by coregistering 5-minute frames before and after accounting for the attenuation-emission mismatch. The relative changes in standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) between the PET volumes processed with the various MC methods, without MC, and the PET volumes with simulated motion were compared in relevant brain regions. STATISTICAL TESTS: The absolute value of the regional SUVR relative change was assessed with pairwise paired t-tests testing at the P = 0.05 level, comparing the values obtained through different MR-based MC processing methods as well as across different motion groups. The intraregion voxelwise variability of regional SUVRs obtained through different MR-based MC processing methods was also assessed with pairwise paired t-tests testing at the P = 0.05 level. RESULTS:MC had a greater impact on PET data quantification in subjects with larger amplitude motion (higher than 18% in the medial orbitofrontal cortex) and greater changes were generally observed for the MR-based MC method compared to the frame-based methods. Furthermore, a mean relative change of ∼4% was observed after MC even at the group level, suggesting the importance of routinely applying this correction. The intraregion voxelwise variability of regional SUVRs was also decreased using MR-based MC. All comparisons were significant at the P = 0.05 level. DATA CONCLUSION: Incorporating temporally correlated MR data to account for intraframe motion has a positive impact on the FDG PET image quality and data quantification in dementiapatients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1288-1296.
Authors: Stefan Teipel; Alexander Drzezga; Michel J Grothe; Henryk Barthel; Gaël Chételat; Norbert Schuff; Pawel Skudlarski; Enrica Cavedo; Giovanni B Frisoni; Wolfgang Hoffmann; Jochen René Thyrian; Chris Fox; Satoshi Minoshima; Osama Sabri; Andreas Fellgiebel Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Hans Herzog; Lutz Tellmann; Roger Fulton; Isabelle Stangier; Elena Rota Kops; Kay Bente; Christian Boy; Rene Hurlemann; Uwe Pietrzyk Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: K B Walhovd; A M Fjell; J Brewer; L K McEvoy; C Fennema-Notestine; D J Hagler; R G Jennings; D Karow; A M Dale Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-01-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Li Feng; Robert Grimm; Kai Tobias Block; Hersh Chandarana; Sungheon Kim; Jian Xu; Leon Axel; Daniel K Sodickson; Ricardo Otazo Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Andrew J Montgomery; Kris Thielemans; Mitul A Mehta; Federico Turkheimer; Sanida Mustafovic; Paul M Grasby Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M Dylan Tisdall; Aaron T Hess; Martin Reuter; Ernesta M Meintjes; Bruce Fischl; André J W van der Kouwe Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Marcus Görge Ullisch; Jürgen Johann Scheins; Christoph Weirich; Elena Rota Kops; Abdullah Celik; Lutz Tellmann; Tony Stöcker; Hans Herzog; Nadim Jon Shah Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Zahi A Fayad; Kathryn J Fowler; Dawn Holley; Andrei Iagaru; Alan B McMillan; Patrick Veit-Haiback; Robert J Witte; Greg Zaharchuk; Ciprian Catana Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Onofrio A Catalano; Lale Umutlu; Niccolo Fuin; Matthew Louis Hibert; Michele Scipioni; Stefano Pedemonte; Mark Vangel; Andreea Maria Catana; Ken Herrmann; Felix Nensa; David Groshar; Umar Mahmood; Bruce R Rosen; Ciprian Catana Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Zhaolin Chen; Francesco Sforazzini; Jakub Baran; Thomas Close; Nadim Jon Shah; Gary F Egan Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Kevin T Chen; Enhao Gong; Fabiola Bezerra de Carvalho Macruz; Junshen Xu; Athanasia Boumis; Mehdi Khalighi; Kathleen L Poston; Sharon J Sha; Michael D Greicius; Elizabeth Mormino; John M Pauly; Shyam Srinivas; Greg Zaharchuk Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Michael A Levine; Joseph B Mandeville; Finnegan Calabro; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Daniel B Chonde; Kevin T Chen; Inki Hong; Julie C Price; Beatriz Luna; Ciprian Catana Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 6.960